9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (T)].- Heard both sides. 2. The appellants obtained a DEEC licence which entitled them to import duty free re-rollable scrap (in addition to other items) and the appellant imported Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) and filed bill of entry giving the description of HMS and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 in terms of the DEEC licence and the Department allowed the same. However, by a notice dated 22-8-1995, a demand of Rs.15,35,392/- was proposed on the ground that in respect of HMS imported by the appellant Modvat credit has been taken by the supporting manufacturer of the appellant and was confirmed. On appeal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 22-11-2000 remanded the matter to the original authority with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that what was imported by them being HMS, the same was not covered under the DEEC licence and their claim for the DEEC benefit under the notification was a mistake and same has also been accepted by the Department. Once they are not covered under DEEC licence, the question of their complying with the conditions under Notification No. 203/92 does not arise. They are willing to pay the duty on HMS as applicable at the time of import and that they are eligible for the concessional rate of duty provided under Notification No. 83/90-Cus. as amended. He also submits that the eligibility for concessional rate of duty under the above no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tages, the Commissioner has not given a finding. Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Commissioner and remand the matter to consider these pleas afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The plea on admissibility of credit CVD will also be considered by the adjudicating authority at the time of re-adjudication. 6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is seen that in the said case the only notification which was available to the assessee at the time of import which granted the assessee the right to import the goods was Notification No. 158/95-Cus. However, in this case, admittedly the goods are not cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
